Should we remove the Middle Name field? [closed]

Question

16 Dec 2022: I am closing this proposal. New points have
been raised against it, and the support for a change of this magnitude should be overwhelming. However, I do expect that we will be making a number of small changes to further de-emphasize the Middle Name field.

WikiTreers,

Since the start of WikiTree 14 years ago, we have had a Middle Name database field for profiles. And for 14 years, there have been complaints about it. :-) Most genealogy tools and websites don't separate out the middle name and many cultures don't use them at all.

We could:

1. Change our Proper First Name field to "Proper First Name(s)", then
2. Move existing middle names into the Proper First Name(s) field, then
3. Eliminate the Middle Name field and include them in the Proper First Name(s) field in the future.

This would improve interoperability with other websites and make many international members happy.

Part of the rationale for keeping the Middle Name field is less important than it used to be. We promise to keep the Middle Name private on private profiles and only reveal the middle initial. This middle initial is valuable for identifying people. For example, if I saw that there was a Chris Whitten on WikiTree I'd wonder if it was me. If I saw it was Chris X. Whitten I'd know it wasn't me and I wouldn't bother the Profile Manager. The middle initial narrows down matches and search results significantly, and we can't display a middle initial if we don't have a Middle Name field. However, post-GDPR, we have fewer private profiles. Many of them are now Unlisted, so they can't be found regardless. We still have millions of member account profiles and profiles of recently-deceased family members, but if we were to eliminate the Middle Name field we could encourage members to include a middle initial in with the Preferred First Name so that it could be displayed and help with identification.

What do you think?

I'm posting "Yes" and "No" answers to facilitate the discussion. Please vote up your preference and comment with any explanation. (Comments at the top here will be hidden after they are read once.) Of course, you are also welcome to post other answers or make your own proposal.

Thanks,

Chris

Answer 1

Yes.  It would eliminate a whole bunch of false Suggestions (743).

Right now, people are entering actual middle names that look like a title or rank (King, Pope, St, Major, Sargent) and getting a Warning on their Suggestion list.  

Eliminating the middle name field would make it emphatic that these ‘prefixes’ are intended to be names, and aren’t data entry errors.    

I’ve been working on the easier aspects of Suggestion 743 (I’m a newish Data Doctor). Almost all of the Warnings have been False - there hasn’t been an actual king, pope, or saint in the whole bunch. (Well, one legendary king, if I’m being totally transparent.)

So, if these fields are combined, it would be a great opportunity to revise the Suggestion report accordingly.

Comments

That is an issue with the error reporting software, and unless resolved there could just transfer to the propsed new format.

 I've just had an example where the mother's LNAB of Lord was used as the 2nd given (middle) name as was the custom in Cornwall and generated the error report.

Answer 2

Keep the middle name field, otherwise compound names will not be distinguish between Betty Lou (compound first name) and Betty (first name) Lou (2nd name),

So deleting the middle name(s) field, and having one given name field will result in (Betty Lou) Daisy Smith and Betty Lou Daisy Smith appearing to be named the same when one has a compound first name and a total of 3 names, and the other has 4 names.

 Subtle differences in names are sometimes all that is available to distinguish between individuals, eg cousins born the same year in the same location.

 I have of family branches where the same names have been used down multiple generations, with at least 5 brothers using the same 5 first names for their sons, and the fine detail in name locations and spelling is what counts, so being able to distinguish between a compound first name and a first and second (middle) given name is important.

Answer 3

I don’t care whether the middle name field is there or not, but if it remains there should be an option for “no middle name” right on the page where you create a profile instead of having to go back in and edit the profile. Plus, as others have pointed out, the middle name field should be where the other name fields are (and used to help weed out non-matches).

Answer 4

I'm voting NO.  The middle name in some of my line is the only way to know who is who, as so many had same YOB . first name and Place of Birth.  I'm sure other families have the same problem

Answer 5

I'd like to see all Given Name(s) entered into a single field.

I wish I had used that method all along. I just did a test run on how names appear in categories etc... and changed from the original First--Middle style:

To ALL given names in the same field:

Which do you think is more informative....?

All of my searches pre/post change yielded identical results.........

I think its time to dump the 'First-Middle' format and go to the single 'Given' format.

Answer 6

I would hate to lose the middle name field. My main reason is that many of my connections used their mother's maiden name as the child's middle name.

I would suggest eliminating one of "Preferred Name" or "Nickname." I'm confused what the difference is between these two.

Comments

Clearly members that read the question don't understand it. WT admin are not saying to remove or not support the middle name, they are saying it would be appended to the Preferred Name (which should be changed to Given Names).

Preferred Name or Called Name could be part of the name shown in "quotes" to denote what the person is called, or if totally different the Nickname field which could be enclosed by (brackets).

Nothing will be lost, just condensed.

---

It has also been said (I think by Jamie) that searches would be better.  Also that current problems for other reasons would be eliminated.  (Better on the database.)

---

Even if information is not lost, format is a very common reason to edit a profile. I don't want to go into all the profiles on my watch list and do hundreds of format edits, or even to check what has happened if this is done automatically. Automation does not always result in a desired outcome. It is too much work and our time is spent better on more substantive pursuits.

Answer 7

I would vote No because I'm concerned about accuracy, differentiation of people with similar names, and connecting records belonging to one person who used different versions of their name.

One relative is John Wesley. His son is Wesley John. Another one is Katie Marie on her birth record, but almost exclusively used Marie during her lifetime, including marriage and other official records. She ended up as Katherine Marie on her death record.

It seems that the name order would run together in one field, but for identification purposes, they are not interchangeable.

Answer 8

No. Others have listed good reasons, but the thing as I see it is, if you want to put two names in the given name field, that option is already available. I think we should have more fields, not less. A burial / cremation date and location / cemetery field would be great. Even though Baptism has only been a Christian thing, it is so prevelant, that I think an option for a date and location for baptism to be entered would be handy too, or the option to select what the religious ceremony is, to allow other religions, such as a barmitsvah date / location. I agree with others, that the middle name field could be moved up. I'd like to see the lower fields have more influence on the suggestions given when creating a profile, to make it easier to locate a match, with suggestion lists becoming much longer. You don't have to enter something in every field, but it makes it easier to compare with or search through fields being used by other family trees, etc. Having more fields, I would think, would make the task of app creators easier, and give them more possibilities to work with.

Answer 9

Not only do I think you should not remove the middle name field but I think you should add it to FIND because I have seen profiles where someone mixed up the middle and first names. If the profile does not have a middle name it can be left blank but some family trees it is helpful to have the middle name field. As for interoperability with other websites that have the flaw like trying to get your middle name added to a credit card or medical card so it does not get mixed up with a family member. Just let other sites import the first and middle name in the first name field or for export let the user pick from a list of how they want every field  exported. Don't try to fix by breaking please.

Comments

Adding it as a field in the search tool would be a big help and prevent multiple needle-in-haystack searches to weed out what cannot be a solution to a problem.

When I worked for the Department of the US Navy, we have a lengthy review process to engineering change proposals to make sure something else further downstream would not break when a change was made. It was a pain but it preserved functions and interoperability with other system with which a given system had to interface.

Another issue is how to make the proposed changes. Any change to the basic name structure will necessitate either manually changing each profile or having a program perform the change automatically. Either way profile managers will need to get involved personally to make sure that changes have been implemented correctly. It's too much work.

Answer 10

I would like to see the option of putting the middle name in either the given name section or a specific middle name section. There are many people who go by 2 names like Billy Joe or Betty-Lu and do not consider the second name as a middle name, but rather as part of their first name.

Answer 11

In the business I was in the middle name was the third "identifier" .  When we would search for a person, we would look for the 1st and last name as the 1st two identifiers.  That would cut the list down.  We would then use the 3rd identifier to sort the list down even further.

If you combine the first and middle names you run the risk of eliminating people because only a initial is known.

Answer 12

No, As an Ancestry.com user  I HATE that there is no Middle name field and it is all in one place. Having the field makes me make a point to find a middle name so I can differentiate people in my tree.

If it is removed, you should have a bubble that forces you to make the choice to view middle initial or the entire middle name when seeing the profile in the search field as some people still have the same middle name just like when we choose the uncertain or certain options of everything else. Example: My aunt was a Christine Margaret and l am Christine Marie. We have the same last name as we are both not married. This would force you to open the profile anyhow to make sure it's not the same person.

Comments

The middle names would not be eliminated, just combined into a single given-name field. I have many objections to this change, but even if it were a good idea (It's not) it would be a nightmare for some profile managers to edit all those profiles on lengthy watch lists. I don't have the time to clean up all the messes that this proposed change might cause. In any case, I would have to check to see what happened to each profile if the change were automated. I don't want to spend my time that way.

Answer 13

I think we should remove or at least move the middle name field to the first and last name section because it really gets me mad when I have to scroll down the list of people that could be related to my person before finally getting to the middle name section.

Answer 14

No Keep it ! Your not required to put it in if they don't have one!

Answer 15

I don't believe it is necessary to remove the middle name category.  Some cultures do have middle names.  What would be beneficial would be for the website to stop automatically adding a middle name when I leave the field blank.  Then I wouldn't have to go back and delete the middle name for the majority of my ancestors who do not come from a culture with a notion of middle name.  Instead, they have a second first name, a third first name, etc, depending on how many people they are named after.

Answer 16

No. If a person doesn’t have a middle name, just leave the space blank. I feel the middle name inclusion is important… many ancestors had very similar names in my family, and middle names are the only way I can keep them sorted ‍♀️

Answer 17

Yes. It's an artificial unnecessary distinction.

Answer 18

For myself, the only loss of functionality I can foresee in combining the first and middle name fields is not being able to mark the first name as certain and the middle name as uncertain.  I can live with that.  

On the other hand, removing the separate middle name field will remove one of the ways in which Wikitree communicates that the "norm" is to be American (or, in this instance, British like me), which will be a small step towards making the community a more welcoming place for everyone.

Answer 19

All given names should be entered into a single field or the First Name Field or whatever it is to be called. 

It's counter-intuitive to separate first and middle names when other databases have them all combined into one field.

Answer 20

Yes, I agree with this proposal except that I would not want my second name to be only the initial. My second name is that by which I have always been called.